The myth of American military superiority

[Banu Umayyah]

Way too early to tell. The F-117 have altered the EM warfare landscape much more subtle than people realized and so far, only the US have managed to exploit those subtle changes to its advantages regarding air warfare doctrines. Crucial to the reexamination and reorganization of doctrines are experience. We know which tactics worked well, which worked not so well, and which failed. However, what failed may be because of the inability to evade certain EM warfare tactics by an adversary. So what tactics that failed against certain types of target may have been revived by 'stealth'. And did in many instances.

The PLAAF does not have that foundation of experience upon which to reexamine and reorganize its air warfare doctrines. Not one PLAAF pilot know what it is like to experience frustration from a wily EM warrior, how to examine that problem under combat stress, and finally how to defeat and/or bypass that EM adversary. It is like giving a rifle to someone whose experience consists of swords and spears, not including archery. It is unfortunate that the Chinese members here have a low opinion of experience.

The PLAAF have no choice but to do a lot of guesswork regarding air warfare doctrines on how to exploit the J-20's low radar observability advantages over regional air forces and air defenses, assuming the high latitude that the J-20's low radar observability is comparable to the F-22, and assuming the US will have no hand in improving regional allied air forces and air defenses.

But...I will go out on a limb and say that based on experience on our part, lack thereof for the PLAAF, and despite the benefit that the J-20 is technically comparable to the F-22, the J-20 will not pose a credible deterrence to the F-35, let alone a dedicated fighter like the F-22.

But lack of experience is not an insurmountable obstacle. If PLAAF uses J-20 in an invasion scenario of for example Taiwan(with its advanced anti aircraft capabilities), will you then concede that Chinese stealth technology is tested and they have enough experience with it?

 

[Esc8781]

It is already a known fact that by end of 2017, USA won't be strongest country economically, militarily, politically, or culturally.

China and Russia are rising fast.
Anti-Americanism in rampant in the Islamic World.

South Americans and Europeans don't like USA.

They said that we were going to collapse in 2010, now this!

 

[gambit]

But lack of experience is not an insurmountable obstacle. If PLAAF uses J-20 in an invasion scenario of for example Taiwan(with its advanced anti aircraft capabilities), will you then concede that Chinese stealth technology is tested and they have enough experience with it?

What if the J-20 is defeated, or at least proved less effective than expected, in that scenario?

A lot of people leveled the misguided argument that the F-22 have never been in combat, therefore it is 'unproven'. The better argument should be that low radar observable, aka 'stealth', have been in combat, therefore the technology and tactic are proven. Now it is only up to the wielder of that capability to prove himself, not the technology to prove itself. China, Russia, Britain, France, and just about everyone can try to deploy their own versions of 'stealth' since we know that the technology worked. But deployment and tactics in combat are different issues and is quite customizable according to the immediate situation/threat. The US already have a wealth of information on those situations and threats and on how to confront or even bypass them via experience with the F-117. Criticizing the F-22 and F-35 is a serious mistake. So if the J-20 is deployed against a Taiwan scenario and proved to be less than satisfactory by analyses, then the issue is not of technology but of employment.

The US made many mistakes with the F-117 in Iraq and Yugoslavia. It would be foolish to think that the US would make the same mistakes with the F-22 and F-35. Most of those mistakes are still classified because they involved mostly tactics. China have no access to them to study to see how those tactics could be adapted towards a Taiwan scenario. So yes, the PLAAF will gain experience, but it would have to be an overwhelming success against Taiwanese air defenses the same impact the F-117 did against Iraq air defenses, else it would not make the PLAAF a peer to the US in terms of effective employment of that technology.

 

[Zabaniyah]

A bit off-topic, but what are the key characteristics of a sixth generation fighter?

Both Boeing and Lockheed are working on it if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Esc8781]

A bit off-topic, but what are the key characteristics of a sixth generation fighter?

Both Boeing and Lockheed are working on it if I'm not mistaken.

Dubbed the "Next Generation Tactical Aircraft"/"Next Gen TACAIR",[4] the USAF seeks a fighter with "enhanced capabilities in areas such as reach, persistence, survivability, net-centricity, situational awareness, human-system integration and weapons effects," a November 4, 2010 presolicitation notice states. “The future system will have to counter adversaries equipped with next generation advanced electronic attack, sophisticated integrated air defense systems, passive detection, integrated self-protection, directed energy weapons, and cyber attack capabilities. It must be able to operate in the anti-access/area-denial environment that will exist in the 2030–50 timeframe.”[5][6]
Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works division has revealed a conceptual next-generation fighter design that offers the first hints of an ambitious, long-term technology strategy for the new class of tactical aircraft that will emerge after 2030. The concept was published in a 2012 calendar, which was distributed to journalists. Lockheed Martin has called for greater speed, range, stealth and self-healing structures.